The reason article does't say anything.
The politico article claims frequency is the same, but the death count has gone up. That supports the theory that the perpetrators are competeting to one up the previous.
The Atlantic article: "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Is what the court restricted restrictions to. The wording following or is relevant.

Putting a time delay on parading the shooter everywhere isn't an unreasonable stretch for the data we have. If it doesn't work the theory is wrong and the justification would no longer apply. I made my post before you linked your articles, I am not spouting nonsense. You are just too emotional.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

from the ruling:
"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

saying someones name is wildly different than advocacy of the use of force inciting/producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce it

a proper interpretation of this is not 'meh government can ban whatever as long as they say harm might come out of it. totes reasonable'



You dislike where the logical conclusion ends so now your amygdala is taking over.
No comment on whether you are an idiot or not, just try and remove your emotions from this.

Do you understand what or means? I have no idea why you put emphasis on directed when it doesn't apply. The wording uses or not and. The data indicates that the constant media exposure of the perpetrators is a motivation.

The reason article is from 2012, it is missing 5 years which is a substantial portion of the 24 hour news cycle. Hence why it isnt saying anything. The motherjones data table also indicates frequency is increasing.

read slowly. maybe someone else can spell it out even clearer for you. hire a tutor if necessary.
im watching the rest of this sons of anarchy episode before bed.

A or B

Directed is part of A not part of B. Statement B applies so state intervention on speech isn't unconstitutional. It doesnt matter that the media isnt intending to create more mass shootings.

I don't think we need to get the government involved. You can show that drawings of Mohammad cause violence but I'd be against banning that too. The media should WANT to voluntarily ignore the shooter.

I genuinely don't understand the significance of filtering the data through a per-capita basis on this topic.

This is what happens when you let radical atheists have guns, Democrats aren't responsible enough to own guns, they cannot even attend church without itching to kill everyone.

No discipline, they're animals.

This post was edited by j0ltk0la on Nov 5 2017 10:40pm